DUKE ENERGY DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION: Last year, the Democrats struggled to make ends meet for the quadrennial few days of hoopla that’s known as the presidential nominating convention. The party had pledged not to take any corporate money to pay for the event, but that put a serious crimp in fundraising. Then party officials made a series of compromises, finding workarounds for the rule against taking corporate money. Now, what remained of the original pledge has crumbled.

When the Dems came up short on money, they borrowed it, taking out a $10 million loan. While it was the convention committee that borrowed the money, the loan was guaranteed by Duke Energy, the North Carolina energy giant, which essentially agreed to pay back the money if the convention committee couldn’t do so. That wasn’t quite a corporate donation — but it wouldn’t have been possible without the corporation.

Some company insiders may be gnashing their teeth. Because Duke Energy’s portfolio includes a number of coal-fired plants, it doesn’t exactly line up with some of the Obama administration’s initiatives. And according to the OpenSecrets.org’s profile of the company, its PAC tends to give more money to Republicans. In the last election cycle, the single largest beneficiary of money from the PAC as well as individuals who are affiliated with the company was GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

BENEFITS OF HEINZ DEAL OBSCURED: Warren Buffet and a Brazilian private equity firm are taking over condiment maker Heinz — paying an estimated $23 billion for the food giant. Speculation is flying that the deal might be making new Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife even wealthier, given that Teresa Heinz Kerry — who was married to the late Sen. John Heinz, an heir to the ketchup fortune — owns a chunk of the company.

We’ll probably never know.

The Center for Responsive Politics tracks the personal financial disclosures made by members of Congress and top members of the executive branch, but there are many, many loopholes in the system. One of the most glaring has to do with the reporting of a spouse’s assets.

In his most recent report, which he filed as a senator, Kerry does disclose that his wife’s family trusts own at least $3 million worth of shares in the company.

At least is the operative word.

Under financial disclosure rules, the value of an asset need only be recorded as being within a range. So, for example, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who, according to our calculations, has the highest estimated average net worth of anyone in Congress, reported having between $15 million and $75 million in the Aberdeen Hedge Fund. That’s a broad range, but at least it has an upper limit.

But disclosure rules also say that if an asset is controlled by a spouse, or a dependent child, the officeholder making the disclosure may simply check a box labeled “$1 million or more” to indicate the asset’s value. How much more is anyone’s guess.

SCOTUS CONSIDERS HEARING MORE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASES: Two campaign finance cases are among those that Supreme Court justices today will consider whether to hear. In both, the constitutionality of two major constraints on campaign contributions to campaigns is being challenged.

In the case of U.S. v Danielczyk, lower courts upheld rules banning corporate contributions to campaigns — or, in this case, the corporate reimbursement of employees who make contributions. The case came out of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, when two men, William P. Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi, employed by Galen Capital, a health care-focused private equity firm, made donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign with the understanding the company would reimburse them. The men were charged criminally by the Department of Justice. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the case, saying the high court’s Citizens United decision lifted the ban on corporate expenditures in elections, but the judge was reversed on appeal. Today the Supreme Court justices will vote on whether to take the case or leave it as it stands.

A second case could also be taken up based on today’s conference. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the plaintiff wants to have overall contribution limits lifted. Currently, an individual may give a campaign as much as $2,600 per election, but there are also overall limits on an individual’s giving in an election cycle: $48,600 to all federal candidates and $75,600 to federal political action committees and parties. These limits don’t apply to donations to super PACs or politically active nonprofits.

According to Center for Responsive Politics data, the plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, has given $421,000 to federal candidates and committees — $419,000 of it in the last two cycles. All of his donations are to Republican candidates, party committees or conservative outside spending groups, including $290,000 to the Conservative Action Fund, a super PAC for which he is the treasurer.

If you have a tip on anything campaign finance-related, we want to hear from you! You can reach us at [email protected]

Russ joined the Center in March 2012 as the money-in-politics reporter. His duties include reporting for OpenSecrets Blog and assisting with press inquiries. Russ has a background in investigative journalism, having worked as a reporter for the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, and he spent five years as a newspaper reporter in New Hampshire. He has a degree in political science from Muhlenberg College and a M.A. in journalism and public affairs from American University.

Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.